politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
A decent fraction of that percentage are not pessimistic, but rather optimistic that the government will not do anything to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. I count myself among that number.
I have a BiL that said he would rather a crazy person be allowed to have a gun than ensure his 4yo can be safe in school or in public. You sound like him.
ETA: Libertarianism is when you can't be bothered to think of the consequences or follow the evidence.
I mean... the evidence is there. The Holocaust. Maoist China. Stalin's Soviet Union. British tyranny over the 13 American colonies.
There is a reason the Second Amendment exists. It provides a physical wedge between the rights of the people and the government, which always seeks to restrict those rights. The consequence of disarmament? See the list in my previous paragraph.
Not if you have anything to do about it, surely.
Those atrocities occurred after the groups to be victimized were disarmed: Jews, Russian people, Chinese people. The American War of Independence was started when the British army attempted to confiscate weapons.
There really is no legitimate reason for a government to disarm its citizens.
The second amendment doesn't exist to fight the government. It exists to have militias to protect the US in the event of an invasion (which is about as likely in the modern era as North Korea becoming a democracy).
Local militias would not have been able to stop any of the things you listed, and it still does absolutely nothing to solve children dying from guns, now the leading cause of child death.
Restudy the history of the Second Amendment. You'll find that it was insisted upon because the signatories were uncomfortable with the potential for tyranny by the federal government.
Irrelevant to my point. The people who signed on to the Second Amendment did not have to deal with mass shootings at the rate we experience today or guns becoming the leading cause of death in children. Meanwhile, when has "protecting yourself from a tyrannical government" ever come to pass? (Don't say the Civil War, which was about owning slaves, not tyrrany).
I'm for gun ownership, with common-sense regulations. What mechanism do you propose that is better than regulation and restriction that would better prevent this senseless loss of life?
That's precisely why tyrannical governments disarm their citizens first. If people willingly give up their arms, they are more easily subjugated.
Gun control advocates have proven that they are unable to write common-sense regulations. If they hadn't broken trust with all the talk of "assault weapons" and inaccurate or false descriptions of firearms to exaggerate how dangerous they are, there would be more "common-sense" regulations in place today.
Use modern physical security practices at schools. If the government is going to make it illegal to carry weapons there, then it has a greater responsibility to protect the defenseless children who are forced to be there. And don't give me that "oh, that shouldn't be necessary" crap. If you're going to force kids to attend school, you have a responsibility to protect them. Period.
Improve access to healthcare of all sorts and fix the affordability crisis.
Get rid of Fifth-Amendment-violating red flag laws. If it doesn't have due process, it's illegal and tyrannical and shouldn't be a law. If you want to disarm someone, you should have to prove that their rights need to be taken away first. Additionally, damage to one's confiscated property should be reimbursed. Confiscating someone's arms after proper due process does not infringe upon the Second Amendment.
So the people getting shot on the regular are what, sacrifices to patriotism? Soldiers dying in defense of the American way? The tens of thousands of deaths by suicide each year are the price we pay for freedom?
And are you seriously okay with that?
I don't see firearms as the cause of those deaths. No data shows more than a correlation between firearms and firearm-related deaths. I believe there are other issues that are causative.
Additionally, I don't see firearm-related deaths as worse than deaths in other categories. Are we more concerned with firearm-related deaths than with deaths with known causes, such as unaffordable healthcare, heart disease, or unsafe driving? Firearm-related deaths accounted for 1.5% of all deaths in the United States in 2022. Rifles, including AR-15-patterned rifles and other types, accounted for 0.02% of deaths that year, while handguns accounted for 0.25%. Meanwhile, 21.88% of deaths were caused by heart disease, 19.53% were caused by cancer, and 5.47% were caused by strokes (these percentages are approximate).
Instead of addressing the 1/50th of one percent of deaths by illegally infringing upon an enumerated right, we should address real causes of mortality by increasing access to affordable healthcare, solving the affordability crisis, and improving access to mental healthcare. Those truly concerned for the safety of children in schools should do away with "gun-free zones" (I call them "Shoot here without fear" zones) and insist upon modern physical security standards and better funding for schools. We have awful schools! Millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted attempting to legally defend indefensible Second Amendment infringements that could otherwise be spent improving our schools and the education of our children.
If you really think that guns are a problem and you really want to address the problem, why the AR-15 "assault weapon" fetish? Why do you gun grabbers focus on everything except for facts?
Data sources in this comment:
I would buy that if gun lovers voted like they cared about schools, health care, and affordability. But you don't. You pay lip service and post screeds on the Internet and vote with people who will make things objectively worse on all those fronts.
Nothing has changed since Columbine, and nothing will, because you don't act like you honestly care people are dying.
How do you know what gun owners vote for? You're making an ignorant assumption about what gun owners vote for. Gun owners exist in every single demographic. There are Black gun owners, Indigenous gun owners, Jewish gun owners, Latinx gun owners, LGBT gun owners.
We own guns because we desire the ability to protect ourselves and we understand the history of gun control in this country: To disarm and victimize undesired groups, in particular, Blacks.
I see the push for gun control to be hand-in-hand with the movement to criminalize self-defense. This is reprehensible.
Gee, why would I think that?
This conversation was old after Sandy Hook. You've already answered my question: You don't honestly care that Americans aren't safe anywhere because of guns because that's the price of freedom. Thanks for at least being honest.
Your dishonesty is tiring and pathetic. Don't presume to read my mind, and don't put words into my mouth.
The funny thing is the vast majority of gun-related deaths involve handguns rather than AR-15-pattern rifles. And prairie dogs? That precisely the kind of creature the .223 Remington or NATO 5.56 intermediate cartridge the AR-15 traditionally fires was designed for. It could be effective against a Columbian drug cartel, but if I were facing down a population of homicidal moose, I would want a much larger caliber, such as the .30-06 most commonly used for battle rifles prior to the introduction of the less powerful NATO 5.56.
You sound like a passionate proponent of gun control. I would advise you to educate yourself on the subject of firearms so as to be more effective in your activism, rather than merely spreading misinformation and FUD.